Court okays anti-gay videos

By SCOTT MacLEOD

A Court of Appeal ruling that censors had no right to ban two videos accused of gay-bashing is being hailed as a victory for free speech - or for hatred.

The 1989 United States videos, Aids: What You Haven't Been Told and Gay Rights/Special Rights: Inside the Homosexual Agenda, were banned here in 1996.

But after a four-year legal battle, distributor Living Word yesterday won its argument that the Film and Literature Board of Review stepped outside its jurisdiction.

The new ruling followed a High Court decision on March 1 that the ban was justified, and means the censors will have to review their decision.

The five appeal judges said the videos had to depict sex in a way that was injurious to the public good to be banned. That element was lacking, therefore the censors had exceeded their jurisdiction and the High Court was wrong to uphold their ban.

The film board unanimously found when banning the videos that they portrayed homosexuals and people with Aids as "inherently inferior."

The tapes "went beyond mere advocacy of an opinion," were riddled with misinformation and used dishonest editing and emotive propaganda to spark fears of a gay conspiracy.

The lawyer for Living Word, Paul Rishworth, said after yesterday's victory that an important principle was at stake - whether opinions could be banned.

"I think freedom of speech is worth fighting for. One doesn't have to agree with the ideas - but it's frightening that ideas can be censored."

The president of the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties, Barry Wilson, also hailed the decision as a victory for free speech.

"The board got its emphasis wrong. It undervalued freedom of expression."

But Auckland University Aids researcher Heather Worth felt that the hateful tone of the videos should outweigh the right to free expression.

"I'm particularly antagonistic towards censorship, but you have to weigh things up.

"Those videos are full of hatred towards homosexual women and men. They promote hatred that I think would be unacceptable if directed towards Maori."

Justices Sir Ivor Richardson, Thomas Gault, Ted Thomas, Sir Kenneth Keith and Andrew Tipping said in yesterday's decision that censors should take a fresh look at the videos before reaching a new decision.

Neither video showed any sexual images other than gay men kissing, the judges said.

Female breasts that could be seen in crowd scenes were scrambled. There was discussion of deviant sexual practices that the videos linked with homosexuality, but those factors made up a tiny fraction of the 43- and 83-minute films.

It was therefore "incongruous to the point of being askew" to ban the videos as objectionable on sexual grounds.

"What is emphasised ... is the perceived promiscuity and irresponsible sexual behaviour of male homosexuals and the fact that they have chosen to pursue the homosexual lifestyle," the judges said.

"Otherwise, the videos are essentially political tracts."

During the appeal hearing, lawyers for the Attorney-General, the NZ Aids Foundation, the Human Rights Commission and the Race Relations Conciliator all urged that the videos stay banned. Lawyers for the NZ Council for Civil Liberties supported freedom of speech.

Mr Rishworth said the distributor had fought as a matter of principle, and was unlikely to make much selling the videos in New Zealand.